In Re ALHC (2001)

In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (citing Lambert v. Coachmen Indus. of Tex., Inc., 761 S.W.2d 82, 88 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, writ denied); Conrad v. Orellana, 661 S.W.2d 309, 313 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi- Edinburg 1983, no writ)).

To determine negligence or fault, we look to see “whether the litigant and his counsel used such care as that which prudent and careful men would ordinarily use in their own cases of equal importance.” In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex.App.Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

P. 120; In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex.App.Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

She therefore attempted to collaterally attack the administrative order, and the trial court properly excluded the evidence.1 See In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 917 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (“Examples of collateral attacks include a defendant’s attempt to deny the existence of a judgment debt in an enforcement action on the judgment ….”).

The petitioner’s due diligence in pursuing available legal remedies is judged by the objective standard of what ―prudent and careful men would ordinarily use in their own cases of equal importance.‖ See In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied). 5 IV.

The petitioner’s due diligence in pursuing available legal remedies is judged by the objective standard of what “prudent and careful men would ordinarily use in their own cases of equal importance.” See In re A.L.H.C. , 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

“The inquiry traditionally used to determine whether a party has been diligent is whether the litigant and his counsel used such care as that which prudent and careful men would ordinarily use in their own cases of equal importance.” In the Interest of A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

In the Interest of A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

Due diligence is that standard of care "which prudent and careful men would ordinarily use in their own cases of equal importance." In re A.L.H.C. , 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

Due diligence is that standard of care “which prudent and careful men would ordinarily use in their own cases of equal importance.” In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

See Delgado v. Burns, 656 S.W.2d 428, 429 (Tex. 1983); In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 915 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

See Delgado v. Burns , 656 S.W.2d 428, 429 (Tex. 1983); In re A.L.H.C. , 49 S.W.3d 911, 915 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 915-16 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.) (bill of review relief available only if party pleads and proves a meritorious defense that she was prevented from making by fraud or wrongful act of opponent, unmixed with any fault or negligence of her own). 2 Appellant has filed no timely perfecting instrument.

In re A.L.H.C. , 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex. App. C Dallas 2001, pet. denied); Conrad v. Orellana , 661 S.W.2d 309, 313 (Tex. App. C Corpus Christi 1983, no writ).

In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 915 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 915 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

"The same rules of interpretation apply to ascertain the meaning of judgments as to ascertain the meaning of other written instruments.” In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 918 (Tex.App.-Dallas, 2001, pet.denied) (citing Lone Star Cement Corp. v. Fair, 467 S.W.2d 402, 404-05 (Tex.1971)); see also Harper v. Welchem, Inc., 799 S.W.2d 492, 495 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no writ) ("If a judgment is unambiguous with no room for interpretation, it is our duty to declare its e…

See In re A.L.H.C. , 49 S.W.3d 911, 917 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

See In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 917 (Tex.App.Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

See In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 917 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied). 3 SOS Alliance filed a “conditional” cross-appeal, arguing that if we reverse the 2008 judgment based on it not being entered in the original cause number of the 2004 lawsuit, we should remand.

See In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911 , 916–17 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (where mother was served with rule 21a notice of counterclaim seeking termination of her parental rights, and thereafter entered an appearance in the proceedings, no further service was required).

See In the Interest of A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 918 ( Tex.App .--Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (judgment is interpreted like other written instruments and absent ambiguity construction of written instrument is question of law).

See In the Interest of A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 918 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (judgment is interpreted like other written instruments and absent ambiguity construction of written instrument is question of law).

See In the Interest of A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 918 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (judgment is interpreted like other written instruments and absent ambiguity construction of written instrument is question of law).

See In the Interest of A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 918 ( Tex.App .--Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (judgment is interpreted like other written instruments and absent ambiguity construction of written instrument is question of law).

P. 120; see also In Re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (holding a person’s appearance in open court on a pending matter has the same force and effect as if citation had been duly issued and served).

See In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex.App.Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

See In re A.L.H.C. , 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

See In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911 ,’ 915 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

P. 120; see also In Re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (holding a person's appearance in open court on a pending matter has the same force and effect as if citation had been duly issued and served).

P. 120; see also In Re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (holding a person’s appearance in open court on a pending matter has the same force and effect as if citation had been duly issued and served).

Id; see In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (bill of review plaintiff claiming lack of service must “exercise due diligence, and if legal remedies were available but ignored, relief by equitable bill of review is unavailable”); Dispensa v. Univ.